Re: Should we complete the WebID spec?

On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 9:16 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Group
>
> I trust this message finds you well.
>
> Over the last couple of days in Solid CG we have been discussing the
> possibility of a "Solid-Lite" spec.
>
> I have begun drafting it, but there's two remaining sections that I need
> to complete.
>
> 1. A lite WebID profile
> 2. A lite authentication method for said profile
>
> Considering recent events, it's entirely understandable if the group feels
> hesitant to pursue the WebID Specs further. I've made an effort to capture
> our previous discussions and integrated aspects from Nathan's
> superset/subset proposal, which you can review here:
>
> https://github.com/webidcg/draft-spec
>
> So I was wondering if there is an appetite to carry on working, or to call
> it a day.  We dont have a chair but we were operating via Jacopo's proposal
> of lazy consensus.
>
> We could use that system to decide whether or not to close the group.
>
> Or to carry on and complete Nathan's suggestion.
>
> Does anyone have thoughts on this?
>

For human to human and basic uses, "what is your webid? it's <x>" will
suffice

For machine readable data, a type Agent, and a property with a domain of
Agent would suffice.

For anything more advanced, such as protocol usage to verify ownership
(webid-tls for example) or similar, then further requirements may be
placed, such as constraining a media type set or determining a validation
method.

I guess, how much does the group want to specify?

At a bare minimum, I'd say "a type Agent, and a property with a domain of
Agent " is required, then perhaps a spec to say x,y,z media types have an
ontology describing this available.